My soul has been shaken.
Your query at the end of your last response rocked my core and caused me to reconsider what I have believed for so long. The earth slipped from beneath me and scattered into a million particles before me.
But reason did come on a white horse as C.S. Lewis put it and I must say that I deeply believe that this exchange must continue. I love you even more for being used by God to touch my heart. I truly desire to know what God desires me to know, but I have too many questions and I hope that you are patient enough to help me see God’s Word clearly. And please don’t apologize for your long responses. I sit in suspense each day that I procrastinate on my reply hoping that you not tire of our conversation (or anyone else that has been following along for that matter). I will make this one much shorter. [-- If I only knew what I was saying when I started writing this! --]
There are several small points that I want to make, but I will try to focus on the two major issues that I believe have not been fully resolved so that we don’t waste time on side topics.
First of all, let’s talk about what it means to be dead. You continue to return to the fact that we are depraved and the main argument that you use to support this is that man is spiritually dead because of sin: “when we talk about [our spirit’s] moral disposition we conclude that they are unfailingly bent on perpetuating their unrepentance. In this way they are dead.” I have yet to see how you link being dead because of sin to being “bent on perpetuating unrepentance,” considering that you agree that the spirit is not metaphysically dead, but metaphorically. So we have to ask ourselves, what does the scripture express that "dead" represents metaphorically?
Death unto something in the New Testament is correlated with not obeying that something and being alive unto something correlates with obeying that something. Let’s look at some parallelism in the book of Romans that confirm this. As you know Jewish minds make use of parallelism in their writings to emphasize and/or juxtapose thoughts. Romans 6:12 and 13 are antithetically parallel in their structure. Romans 6:12 and 13 end up being an elaboration of Romans 6:11, but basically state the same thing (synthetically parallel). Unfortunately, the divisions in the verses aren’t inspired so I’m going to do without them to highlight the parallelism.
Romans 6:11 – 13
(A) Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(B)Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin,
(C)but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
Phrase (B) and (C) are obviously antithetically parallel. They both have the basic structure of who reigns and who is used/obedient. In phrase (B) sin reigns and our members are used as instruments for unrighteousness because of our obedience to it. In phrase (C) God reigns, and our members are used as instruments for righteousness because of our obedience.
Phrase (C) doesn’t exactly say ‘God reigns,’ though its implied from its antithetical parallelism with phrase (B), but it states “present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead.” The use of the word alive connects back with the second part of phrase (A) “alive to God.” In fact, phrase B and C are an elaboration of phrase A which has two parts: ‘dead to sin’ and ‘alive to God.’
So what’s the conclusion of what Paul is emphasizing in this synthetic parallelism?
Dead to sin means to not allow sin to rule over us and use our bodies for unrighteousness.
Alive to God means to allow God to rule over us and use our bodies for righteousness.
Now, if you say that when we are spiritually dead sin rules over us so strongly that we are irrevocably compelled to reject anything that is righteous, then you must conclude that now that God rules over us we must irrevocably reject anything that brings about unrighteousness.
But this is not the case. This “reign” of God is not a totalitarian reign, otherwise Paul would not have to encourage us not to be used as instruments for unrighteousness. But we can be, so I John 1:9 states that “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Similarly, the “reign” of sin is not a total reign, as unbelievers are sometimes used as instruments for righteousness; now this latter righteousness does not lead unto salvation because man is tainted with sin. The righteousness is like dirty rags. Though there may be some clean spots on the rag you wouldn’t wash your body with it because it is dirty.
(By the way, I cannot agree with your separation of moral good and civic good. Please support this argument a little bit more if you feel it is necessary. There have been plenty of Christians in history that prove that not all good deeds are done with good intentions, and unbelievers that have behaved altruistically [nevertheless their altruism is not accounted to them for salvation] – but this might be a side topic)
Okay, let’s continue with our study. Now the word instrument seems like a passive word. You might argue that an instrument does not tell its user how to use it, but the preliminary phrase of each of those verses limits how far we can take the metaphor of being instruments. It states that when we allow sin to reign, we are presenting ourselves as instruments. But when we present ourselves to God our members are instruments for righteousness. In this sense there is a presenting/yielding/obedience that must first take place on our part before we are used as instruments. How can I support this? Well, because the parallelism of obedience and yielding doesn’t end here. Let’s continue:
Romans 6:16 - 18
“Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.”
So here it emphasizes that obedience makes us slaves. But once again these verses show that we are not TOTAL slaves. The verse states clearly “though we were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart.” Now if we were slaves, completely surrendered, how could we obey another master (doctrine) from our heart? [For whom we obey is our master Romans 6:16] In other words, if you say that as an unbeliever I will always obey sin to the point that I will not choose God ever, how is it that the verse says that “though you were slaves…you obeyed from the heart.” You obeyed God while you were a slave. And THEN, because of your obedience from the heart, you were set free from sin and became a slave of righteousness.
Here are v.17 and 18 in a different translation (NASB)
17But (AF)thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that (AG)form of teaching to which you were committed,
18and having been (AH)freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Now this leads to the question you begged: “How is that not meritorious on your part, especially when others didn't have either the intelligence or the enlightened sense that you did when you made the right choice to put your faith in Christ?”
This was the question that really rocked me. But I realize now the error of the question. First of all, it doesn’t take intelligence to come to God. Any simple individual can come to Christ. It doesn’t even take an enlightened sense either. When I chose to surrender my heart to God I was in darkness as to the depths of the gospel (I barely understood it, if at all). It wasn’t until afterwards that the Lord enlightened my senses. All it takes is surrender, giving in. Now should I be rewarded or praised because I surrendered to God and others didn’t? Of course not! It’s like saying that a person on the verge of death should be praised and merited because he put the medicine that would cure him to his mouth. No, he is not praised for doing that. It is the doctor that provided the cure that is praised. He simply surrendered to what the doctor asked him to do. It is not meritorious that a dead man takes the vial that will cure his body. He is just doing what anyone would expect him to do. What is sad is when he doesn’t take it while the cure is so close to him. That’s why we should share the gospel with unbelievers with broken hearts.
I’m not going to go ahead and elaborate the second major point, but I will mention it. It deals with these so called “stages” of salvation based on Romans 8:29-30:
“29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
I’m assuming that the stages are these: Foreknew, Predestined, Called, Justified, Glorified.
Your use of the word stages in the context that you used it in implies that 1st we are foreknown by God, then predestined, then called (at this point we are not technically saved but certainly on the way there), after the call comes justification (accepting Christ as savior perhaps), then glorification.
How funny our temporal minds work. Saying that this verse occurs in a particular order is an eisegesis of the verse. There’s no use of the words first, second, third, etc. or any other literary element that might signify stages. Furthermore, let’s not limit God to our time. He is outside of time. He doesn’t first foreknow, then predestine, then call, etc. God is the ‘I AM.’ The ever present. Whom He foreknows, He simultaneously predestines, and simultaneously calls, and simultaneously justifies, and simultaneously glorifies. Now, we who are bound in time see these in stages, but God sees it all at once.
God foreknew who would choose Him. He foreknew those that would know Him; those whom He knew before they yet knew Him, but would know Him. So those whom He foreknew would choose him, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.
I’ll leave it here. I love you my brother. I can’t wait to see you and give you a hug.
Can’t wait to hear from you.
6 comments:
Berny, I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to reply. I don't mean to make you wait. Part of my reason for taking this long is that I have genuinely been very busy. Another part of me also feels that maybe we have hit a plateau and some sense of urgency has left me. I don't mean to say this to disappoint you or anyone reading this. But perhaps God will use you to shed light on my thoughts, as I will share them just now.
I have to say Berny that I deeply enjoy our conversation and that I have been blessed and edified by it. Some of my thoughts surrounding this issue have been cemented, and other things that I haven't thought of have caused me to examine myself and to prayerfully examine the Word of God. Believe me when I tell you that my lack of seceding from my stand does not deal too much with pride (as far as I know). If your arguments were foolproof I would happily change my way of thinking. They certainly have caused me to reevaluate what I thought was my sound understanding. I would love to be certain and not have to be concerned about such a serious topic, but I believe that the argument for total depravity has still not been well supported.
I want to discuss a comment that you made in which I believe there may be some unfounded assumptions:
"when there is absolutely nothing we can do nor anything we would want to do to submit to Christ, it magnifies the grace of God in the highest possible way when we realize that he made us able and willing to come to him when it was the furthest thing from our minds.”
I would argue that it magnifies the Grace of God more in our lives that He allows us sinful, undeserving, simple creatures to be a part of this decision to submit to Christ. Now that’s Grace! How is God magnified? I think in part in that His attributes are glorified. And from what we know of God through His Word we know that God is a Trinity. What does that tell us about the very nature of God? In part, that one of His truest characteristic is this community that exists between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Though there are different roles that each Person in the Trinity plays no One is less or more God. They are equally One God. God has been living in relationship and community from all eternity. And this community is one in which the Godhead interact with each other. One does not tell the other what to do. Now God makes man partly because He loves this community and wants to bring us into it. There is a reciprocal love that occurs when we come to Christ. There is this sense of God loving us and then us loving God. There is an interaction. There is a community.
It seems to me that God’s nature is more greatly magnified when it is seen through this interaction that He has with man. He is not a total dictator, but allows us to be a part of the process. That magnifies His Grace even more. Not that He would create robots that cannot interact with him of their own accord, but that He creates creatures that in every sense do not deserve to interact with Him, or for that matter choose Him, but He chooses it to be so. Now that’s Grace!
I’ll reply to the rest of your arguments in order (I have left parts of your writings out for sake of brevity, but anyone reading this should be encouraged to go back and reread them):
“Col. 2:13:When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins"
In my view, there isn't a stronger concept that Paul could've utilized in order to express to what extent sin has affected our spiritual condition. Here Paul notes that before Christ we were "dead in [our] sins" and "[dead] in the uncircumcision of [our] sinful nature."
Here you have not exegetically shown that the word dead refers to total depravity. You are interpreting it as such (eisegesis). In fact, the next verse that you mention supports the argument that I made in my last comment that states that the words “dead in sin” refer to our yielding to it as a master, but we retain the ability during that slavery to yield to God. (Romans 6:17 and 18 -- But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.)
Since these descriptors in Eph. 2:1-3 are in the past tense, we need to look to verses 4-5 to account for the change that has taken place. Verses 4-5 state that it was God, who being rich in mercy, made us alive.
I don't see another view present in the text other than the view that holds that we are both unable and unwilling to come to God until he makes us both able and willing.
I think the key is understanding whom “us” refers to. I think Paul establishes this in earlier in Ephesians 1:19 “and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength.” I think that you would agree that the word “us” refers to those that believe. With that understanding reading Ephesians 2:4-5 states that God who is rich in mercy made us (who believe) alive. We are alive because we believed, not the other way around.
To reject this view is to say that being "dead in our sins," "dead in the uncircumcision of our sinful nature," "dead in our transgression and sins," "followers of the desires and thoughts of our sinful nature," "by nature objects of wrath" doesn't make us spiritually unable. Yet I don't know how Paul could've illustrated our spiritual inability in stronger terms.
Well, I believe that the word of God reveals both in Romans 6 and Ephesians 2 that being dead in sin refers to a yielding to sin, but does not exclude an ability to yield to God, who makes us alive when we do. Obviously, we cannot determine how else Paul could have illustrated the point of total depravity. I mean, he could have simply said “as unbelievers we were spiritually unable to believe in God and respond to Him,” but he doesn’t say that, and I think it’s because that’s not exactly what’s going on.
Consider Rom. 8:5-8:
Here are James White's reflections on this passage:
"The fleshly (unregenerate) mind is hostile toward God (never neutral), for it does not subject itself to the law of God. But it is the assertion that follows this that causes so many to stumble: the fleshly mind "is not able."
This verse is taken out of context in order to explain a situation dealing with total depravity. Instead, Paul is encouraging believers to not live after the flesh as before. Furthermore, he is speaking of those that are of the flesh and those that are of the spirit and how their mindset is different. This verse is not touching upon the issue of how one goes from living after the flesh to living after the Spirit. The context is “don’t live after the flesh.” Because of this Paul’s purpose is not to give great detail on the intricacies of how one goes from being carnally minded to living after the Spirit. He is already speaking to people that are supposedly living after the Spirit. No need to discuss the in between part. Other than that, he’s right, the word “hostile” seems to express a constant enmity. But I think there is more than flesh, and mind involved in the process of becoming “alive.” Paul wasn’t discussing this issue so we shouldn’t try to interpret too much information from these verses regarding an unrelated issue.
Do you think that the person described in Eph. 2:1-3, Col. 2:13, and Rom. 8:5-8, can "reckon himself...alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord," as well as "present [himself] to God as being alive from the dead, and [his] members as instruments of righteousness to God"? It seems to me that there is a radical divide between the two types of men described here.
Indeed, there is a glaring incongruence between the first set of passages that I listed above and the passage you bring up here. This is not because Paul is being inconsistent or contradictory but because in them he is dealing with two different things.
I hope that from what you read earlier that these two passages (Ephesians 2 and Romans 6) complement each other and that there are no incongruencies. Both passages support the same metaphorical understanding of being “dead” to be correlated with “submission,” “yielding,” “disobedience.” While we were in the world and dead in sin we yielded ourselves to the world and to the prince of the power of the air by disobedience(Eph. 2:2). Now that we’re made alive by obedience, we yield ourselves unto God (Romans 6:13 and 16).
You write:
"Now, if you say that when we are spiritually dead sin rules over us so strongly that we are irrevocably compelled to reject anything that is righteous, then you must conclude that now that God rules over us we must irrevocably reject anything that brings about unrighteousness."
This is a non-sequitur because when we are regenerated our sinful nature is not eradicated.
I’m not arguing that our sinful nature is not eradicated after being regenerated. I’m arguing that our spiritual nature is not eradicated prior to us believing in God unto salvation.
What happens is our new nature is in a sense grafted onto our old nature.
Can you show me some scriptures where this is supported? My new nature is not grafted onto a dying tree. I have been grafted into a living, good, olive tree! (Romans 8:17 –25)
You wrote:
“Now this leads to the question you begged: "How is that not meritorious on your part, especially when others didn't have either the intelligence or the enlightened sense that you did when you made the right choice to put your faith in Christ?"
It definitely requires an enlightened sense to come to God. Isn’t God the true God? Is not Christianity the true religion? There a thousand other gods to choose from and a thousand other religions to choose from, yet you made the right choice.
I was not enlightened until afterwards. I wasn’t aware I was making the right choice. In my mind I thought something like this, ‘if this doesn’t work I have nothing to lose. If this is for real I have everything to gain’. I was unenlightened until the Spirit came to dwell with me and in me, and enlightened me after I believed.
What’s more, you will be able to stand alongside the others in the end and say to yourself that you made the right choice, while they made the wrong choice. Again, unless you’re claiming that it was a crap shoot, it’s clear that you did make the enlightened choice over against the choices of the others.
In some sad ways it was a ‘crap shoot.’ That’s what God took me out of. Now, it doesn’t mean it was pure luck that I chose the right ‘religion.’ God had been leading me to choose Him by sending Christians to my life. As I believe He leads everyone in the world to choose Him through the Bible, missionaries, dreams, etc. But it was still up to me to choose.
That is not exactly the right illustration. Consider instead ten doctors all in a row all vying for your attention… Somebody tells you that doctor number 4 is the best doctor there is, others even tell you that he’s the only true doctor there is. Yet your friends remain unconvinced. They all choose the cures of other doctors. Yet you trust that doctor 4 is the best doctor … It turns out you were right! Your friends all perish and you live on!
You were enlightened enough to make the right choice. It wasn’t a guessing game. You trusted the right one; they didn’t. Yet your choice was the only enlightened one out of all the choices made.
Well, there are tons of things that would lead a person to the right doctor. First, the right doctor never tires of actively revealing to people one way or another that he is the right doctor. Second, all the other doctors perpetuate death, which is evidence of why many people end up going to many different religions before finally resting in the Truth of Christ. Third, even nature itself reveals the invisible attributes of this right ‘doctor.’ Fourth, our very being longs for the right doctor. That’s why people search in the first place. Obviously, there are all sorts of circumstances. But we are not without help to choose the right ‘doctor.’ But it is still up to us to make the choice.
One more thing, if God foreknows those who will choose him, why does he create those whom he knows won’t ever end up choosing him?
I could ask you the same thing. If God decides who will choose Him and who won’t, why does He create people He has determined will suffer in hell?
The final thought I'll leave you with is one that I've never heard a non-predestinarian person answer with any semblance of adequacy or coherence: Why does one believe and another disbelieve?
Your final thought is worthy of it’s own discussion, though I think the label ‘non-predestinarian’ is misleading. God does predestinate those who believe to be conformed into the image of His Son (Romans 8:29). I believe that. But I think that this question is superfluous to this current conversation. For example, I know that when I turn the key in my car ignition that it turns on, but I don’t know the technical aspects of why it turns on. Similarly, I don’t need to understand why each person makes his or her choice. I just know that each person can make his or her choice. I’m sure each individual case is different. I know that God’s Word reveals that there is an interaction in which God chooses us and then we choose Him or decide not to choose Him. Interaction.
Remy, sorry for the wait on this one. I’ve been so busy recently.
Ditto.
Berny! Wow, dude you are relentless. I say that with as much of a positive twist as that word can carry. Thank you so much for continuing our conversation and for carrying it on with such a godly attitude. Man! I want to be able to say as you recommended that I have done in depth research on this matter and have come up with an answer or no answer. I do not want to be lazy. And I'll tell you what, the character that God is forming in you lends itself to be an encouragement for me. I do not feel put down by you (though I do have to remind myself that your arguments are not towards me as a person -- as I hope you remind yourself the same). Sometimes Freddy makes fun of us because we spend time extolling one another. But to tell you the truth, I wouldn't have it any other way. My admiration of you is genuine, and I wish that I had at least half the knowledge that you seem to have. I notice also that your love for God and Truth is just as real as mine. I mention this for a reason. Only one time before have I had such an entrenched debate with someone. The debate was with a Catholic brother that to this day I consider a true believer, and the topic was on evolution. I, a confident science major armed with my knowledge of cellular biology, and he a near genius (not exaggerating - though I didn't know this at the time) was armed with philosophy. It was a head on collision that sent me reeling. Not because I stumbled in our arguments, but because the love of Christ was not as present as it seems to be from my perspective in our conversation. Nevertheless, God used that situation to teach me a lot of things (I almost became a Catholic, but that's another story). He and I became close friends and the Lord has worked so marvelously in his life later on that I feel like he's a different person. Now he and I still disagree on the issue of evolution (and many other things), but we can worship and bless our Lord Jesus Christ in unity. In fact, I don't even call his beliefs Catholicism. I call it Cathobillism after him. He sees things very differently from the way Catholics from Latino backgrounds typically express what is often nothing more than tradition and substanceless religion.
Anyways, I digress. This has been a wonderful experience. Now, let's keep plowing...
First, I will keep this short because I do not want to go over every single response you made. I think you're right in that you have been limited by taking the defensive stance. Don't be offended when I say that I personally sense that you are basically repeating yourself. So, yes, we're at an impasse. I argue one thing; you defend Calvinism; I reply arguing a similar thing; you defend with similar arguments you first presented. So instead of continuing this cycle I'm going to decide to stop it, if it's okay with you, and ask you (when you have time), to present a positive offensive argument for Calvinism.
I will form an argument on one thing though. I strongly believe that the context of the book of Romans strongly supports that the chapter that you alluded to (chapter 9) is referring to a group of people and not individuals.
You said,
Romans 9:14-22:
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
To support Calvinism this verse would have to be taken completely out of context. God is not saying "I will have mercy on some people that I create ahead of time as unredeemable reprobates for the sake of the elect and some people who will irresistibly turn to me."
(which by the way, I still don't see how irresistible could not mean robots, but that might just be my own personal problem.) The context supports that God is actually telling the stubborn Israelites that He will have mercy on those that believe by faith even if they're not Jews, and He will not have mercy on people that don't have faith even if they're Jews. The argument is between a group of people that believe in faith v. Jews that have the law and no faith in Christ. If you read from the beginning of Romans you notice that Paul begins to argue that all are guilty as judged by the Law (Romans 3:23). This condemns every Jew. Romans 9:7 reiterates this dichotomy between people who think they're saved just because they're Jews and people who are saved by faith: "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." The reference to Isaac refers to people who are saved by faith. Isaac being the promise that God made to Abraham that because Abraham believed and had faith in God's promise, it was accounted to him as righteousness. This he makes clear back in Romans 4:2-3 'For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”' So when we reread Romans 9:9 "what shall we say then, is there unrighteousness with God?" We understand that the dilemma he's been addressing all along is this issue that the Jews had that they felt they were saved just because they were born Jews (Romans 9:7). This hearkens back to when Jesus said in Matthew 3:9 "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." So in keeping with the context we cannot then say that God raises some individuals to not believe and some to believe. We have to keep the context in mind. It's stating that God will save those that believe though they may not be Jews and will not save those that don't believe though they may be Jews. Now, this point is further supported by what Paul says right after Romans 9 in Romans 10:1-4 including the rest of the chapter:
" 1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel[a] is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Once again the argument is not that some individuals are destined to be saved and some are not. The discussion Paul is having is that those that believe shall be saved though they don't follow the Law, and those that don't believe shall not be saved even though they follow the Law. I mean if this is not clear enough I don't know what is. Perhaps you have good arguments for Calvinism. In fact, I'm sure you do, but they cannot rely on Romans 9. You yourself said from the very beginning that in order to exegetically expound on scripture you have to consider the historic and literary context of the verses in mind. Entire books have been written on this subject. I'm not the first to bring this up. In fact, Jacobus Arminius argued this same point.
Now, I will tell you this. I was doing a little more research on classical arminianism and there is something that I would like to mention. They, too, believe in Total Depravity. And their take is one that appeals to me in my understanding of scripture. I can agree that man is totally depraved, but the Lord, by His grace, draws all men unto Himself and assists them(like a pre-regeneration) and then they can choose. This seems to me understandable. If God indeed draws all men to Himself and they still don't choose Him, than His judgment against them is Just. Granted, what I think of Justice may be very far from what God sees as Justice.
Anyways, I know I just sent you a curveball there at the end. I will wait for your offensive take on Calvinism, and if you'd like to please reply to the arguments I just made. Also, let me know if you want me to open up a new blog so that we don't have to keep scrolling down half a mile just to read the new comments. :-) Not that I mind.
God bless you my brother. Thank God for the work He's completing in you. May He also bless your family and those around you.
Remy.
Post a Comment